Woods v Collins - [2019] SASCFC 146

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Civil)
WOODS v COLLINS
[2019] SASCFC 146
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Kelly and The Honourable Justice Parker)
22 November 2019
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ROAD ACCIDENT CASES - ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE - APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES
Appeal against a decision of a Judge of the District Court, by the plaintiff, that the defendant’s liability for negligence is assessed at 70/30 in the defendant’s favour.
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision at a bend in a dirt track in New South Wales. The plaintiff was driving uphill and the defendant was driving downhill on the track. At the time of the collision, the defendant’s vehicle was stationary but straddling the up and down tracks. The plaintiff was unable to brake in time to avoid the collision.
The Judge did not include in the damages awarded a component for attendant care services, pursuant to s 141B of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (the MAC Act), provided to the plaintiff by her husband after 24 February 2013.
Held per Kourakis CJ (Kelly and Parker JJ agreeing), allowing the appeal in part:
1. The finding on liability by the Judge be set aside and instead apportion responsibility for the collision equally.
2. The Judge erred in failing to award any damages for future economic loss. An award of $15,000 is appropriate.
3. The parties to be heard as to the amounts for which judgment should be entered.
Held per Kourakis CJ (Kelly and Parker JJ agreeing), dismissing the appeal in part:
4. It was open to the Judge to find that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proof she carried in respect of the six hours per week threshold under s 141B(3) of the MAC Act. No error of fact has been shown.
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) s 3, s 126, s 141B , referred to.
Woods v Collins [2018] SADC 62, discussed.
Geaghan v D'Aubert [2002] NSWCA 260; Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117; Hill v Forrester (2010) 79 NSWLR 470, considered.

WOODS v COLLINS
[2019] SASCFC 146
Full Court: Kourakis CJ, Kelly and Parker JJ

KOURAKIS CJ: This is an appeal against a judgment entered in the District Court on a claim for damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle collision.
On 4 January 2012 the plaintiff, the appellant on the appeal, Mrs Woods, was driving a Mitsubishi four-wheel drive vehicle uphill on the Major Clews Trail, a dirt track in the Kosciusko region of New South Wales. Her husband, Mr Woods, was a passenger in her vehicle. The defendant, Mr Collins, was driving his Toyota Hilux down the track. The vehicles collided at a bend which swung to the right in Mrs Woods’ direction of travel. The Judge found that Mrs Woods’ Mitsubishi was entirely on her left-hand side,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Woods v Collins

Details

AGLC: Woods v Collins [2019] SASCFC 146
Case: [2019] SASCFC 146
Decision Date: 22 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the South Australian Supreme Court, Kourakis CJ, Kelly and Parker JJ considered an appeal concerning a motor vehicle collision between Mrs Woods and Mr Collins. The dispute arose from an accident on a narrow track where the parties' vehicles collided. Mrs Woods claimed damages for injuries sustained, alleging negligence on the part of Mr Collins. Mr Collins, in turn, alleged contributory negligence on the part of Mrs Woods.

The central legal issues before the court were whether either party was negligent, and if so, to what extent each party's negligence contributed to the collision and the resulting damages. The court was required to determine the apportionment of responsibility between Mrs Woods and Mr Collins, and to assess the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to Mrs Woods.

The court's reasoning focused on the conflicting accounts of the accident. Mrs Woods testified that her foot slipped while braking, trapping it and preventing her from fully controlling her vehicle, and that the track was wide enough for two vehicles to pass. Mr Collins claimed Mrs Woods was on the wrong side of the track and that he had kept to the left as much as possible, slowing down and braking upon seeing her vehicle. The court found that while Mrs Woods' actions, particularly her inability to brake effectively due to her foot slipping, contributed to the collision, Mr Collins' account was inconsistent with his own insurance claim. Ultimately, the court determined that both parties bore equal responsibility for the accident, apportioning liability at 50% each.

The appeal was allowed, the finding on liability was set aside, and responsibility was apportioned equally between the parties. The award of damages was increased by $15,000.00, and the parties were to be heard on the final amount for which judgment should be entered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I elaborate on my reasons below.Liability – the evidence Mrs Woods testified that as she drove up the track it swung significantly to her right. As she approached the curve, she caught sight of a car, a bit of ‘colour’ coming down the track through the trees to her right-hand side. She was travelling about 25 to 30 kilometres per hour. She attempted to brake but her foot slipped and ended up beneath the pedals. It did not hit either the clutch or the accelerator as it slipped to the floor. Mrs Woods said that her foot then became trapped beneath the pedals. She glanced down at her feet for a moment as she was trying to pull her foot out and when she lifted her eyes she saw that the collision with Mr Collins’ vehicle was imminent. Mr Collins’ vehicle had stopped at the apex of the corner. It was positioned straight ahead of her car but to her left. Mrs Woods testified that it was difficult for her to move around to the left of Mr Collins’ car because of trees on the side of the road. Her vehicle continued to move slowly forward while she was attempting to extricate her foot. Indeed, Mrs Woods accepted that if she had put her foot on the clutch, instead of attempting to brake, the incline of the track itself would have brought her vehicle to a standstill before colliding with Mr Collins’ Hilux. Mrs Woods testified that she and her husband revisited the accident site about four years later. They measured the width of the track at the point of collision to be 7.5 metres. She testified that it was wide enough for two vehicles to pass safely. Mrs Woods, as did Mr Collins, agreed that the width of their cars was about 1.8 metres. Mrs Woods testified that the defendant’s left-hand side bull bar collided with the front of her car. Mr Collins testified that there was rain on the previous day and that it had washed out the left-hand side of the road on the down track. He said that he was travelling at 25 to 30 kilometres per hour. Mr Collins testified that he braked as he drove around the bend to his left. He kept to the left as far as practicable. He testified that there was a rut caused by a washaway about one metre out from the embankment, and claimed that he drove approximately 20 centimetres from the rut towards the centre of the road. He testified that he slowed to about 10 to 15 kilometres per hour as he turned into the corner and braked as soon as he saw Mrs Woods’ vehicle. Mr Collins claimed that her vehicle was travelling well up the centre of the track, directly towards him. Mr Collins testified that he thought there was enough room for Mrs Woods’ vehicle to pass to his right. He described their vehicles as ‘sharing the same track’, that is to say that Mrs Woods was following the curve of the road at about the same distance from the washout as he was. Indeed, he claimed that on alighting from the vehicle Mrs Woods would have stepped into the rut. In the claim which Mr Collins submitted to his insurance company for the damage to his car, he showed his car on the very left-hand side of the down track and did not indicate a rut or washaway. The diagram he drew for the purposes of the claim showed Mrs Woods’ car on the wrong side of the road directly in front of his.

Decision

Reasons for decision

After allowing for all relevant contingencies, an award of $15,000.00 is appropriate. Conclusion I would allow the appeal. I would set aside the finding on liability and apportion responsibility for the collision equally. I would increase the award of damages by $15,000.00. I would hear the parties on the amount for which judgment should be entered. KELLY J: I agree with the Chief Justice. PARKER J: I agree with the orders proposed by the Chief Justice.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.